The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Impact of Anesthetic State on Spike-Sorting Success in the Cortex: A Comparison of Ketamine and Urethane Anesthesia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neural Circuits, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fncir.2017.00095 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
K. Jannis Hildebrandt, Maneesh Sahani, Jennifer F. Linden |
| Abstract |
Spike sorting is an essential first step in most analyses of extracellular in vivo electrophysiological recordings. Here we show that spike-sorting success depends critically on characteristics of coordinated population activity that can differ between anesthetic states. In tetrode recordings from mouse auditory cortex, spike sorting was significantly less successful under ketamine/medetomidine (ket/med) than urethane anesthesia. Surprisingly, this difficulty with sorting under ket/med anesthesia did not appear to result from either greater millisecond-scale burstiness of neural activity or increased coordination of activity among neighboring neurons. Rather, the key factor affecting sorting success appeared to be the amount of coordinated population activity at long time intervals and across large cortical distances. We propose that spike-sorting success is directly dependent on overall coordination of activity, and is most disrupted by large-scale fluctuations in cortical population activity. Reliability of single-unit recording may therefore differ not only between urethane-anesthetized and ket/med-anesthetized states as demonstrated here, but also between synchronized and desynchronized states, asleep and awake states, or inattentive and attentive states in unanesthetized animals. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 37% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 20 | 49% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 15% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,578,649
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neural Circuits
#943
of 1,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#326,142
of 438,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neural Circuits
#32
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 438,562 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.